The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) will use a two part response to ICANN's calls for input to ICANN's evolution and reform process. The initial response will enumerate a set of principles that the RIRs believe should frame the interaction between ICANN and the RIRs. The second part will focus on integrating these principles into a more general comment about roles and relationships between ICANN and the RIRs.

As noted in the RIPE NCC response to the ICANN reform proposal document [RIPE], there is support from the RIRs in the drive to return to ICANN's core tasks, namely the coordination of Internet resources on a technical level.

Any ICANN changes and reforms arising from this process need to be deliberate steps that are intended to achieve specific and well understood outcomes. The RIRs believe that the initiation of such a process can be assisted by the enumeration of a set of principles of interaction between ICANN and the RIRs.

The RIRs believe in the value of informed policy making, using an open process of participation that implements an industry self-regulatory framework for RIR policies. The RIRs believe ICANN should be a venue for responsible review of those policies that are developed within the RIR process and that are common to all RIRs (global policies). The RIRs see no value in a process that admits the imposition of arbitrary and potentially capricious policies onto the management of Internet resources.

As address allocation is constrained by network topology and other technical considerations, it is the RIRs conviction that address allocation policies are best developed within the RIR process by those who understand and represent the needs of the interested constituencies. Equally, the RIRs believe that within the area of address management, ICANN should not be a policy developing body, but should focus on coordination of informed external review of global policies as well as technical coordination of the address resource.

The RIRs believe that they represent an important constituency for ICANN's efforts in coordination of Internet resource management, and would see direct representation on the Board of ICANN as being consistent with this position.

The RIRs believe that the open policy determination processes used by the RIRs provide interested stakeholders and constituencies the ability to participate fully and openly. The RIRs believe that no additional measures relating to the consideration of the At Large study with respect to ICANN are relevant to this RIR process.

The RIRs are willing to undertake a fair allocation of funding of ICANN activities. This funding commitment should be described within the context of an executed contract between the RIRs and ICANN, and executed within a public ICANN budget process.

Funding should be provided by those using ICANN's services. The RIRs would see ICANN concentrate on its basic set of roles, and ensure that ICANN's 'Activity Plan' and ICANN's budget are fully transparent and well understood by ICANN's service consumers.

The RIRs seek from the outcome of the ICANN evolution and reform process a body capable of operating in a stable fashion with consistency and openness in the manner in which it undertakes its responsibilities.

The RIRs are not necessarily committed to a model of ICANN as a single body with responsibilities in the areas of domain names, Root DNS Server operations, Internet addresses, Internet protocol numbers. The RIRs would like to understand the implications of a devolution of this role into up to four distinct entities with responsibilities in each of these areas, as an alternative approach to a single ICANN entity.

The RIRs are not necessarily committed to the continued existence of an Address Council and an Address Supporting Organization in any future structure of ICANN. The RIRs would like to understand the implications of undertaking the address management policy coordination role currently undertaken by the ASO within a number of different scenarios.

The RIRs see no absolute requirement to have a two level address management process of initial allocations to RIRs and subsequent allocations from RIRs to local registries and end users, and wish to understand whether an approach of RIR management of the unallocated address resources would support a more efficient management process with adequate safeguards regarding longer term stewardship of the address resource.

The RIRs believe that within the area of address management there is a valid role for a lightweight external review body with respect to global RIR policies, as part of an overall RIR requirement for check, balance and review in the global RIR policy determination process. The RIRs would be supportive of an outcome of the ICANN evolution and reform process that defined an address management role consistent with this requirement.